The ITAT Mumbai deleted a transfer pricing adjustment of ₹61.22 crore after finding the facts identical to an earlier assessment year. It held that a pending High Court appeal does not dilute the binding nature of an unreversed Tribunal decision.
The Bombay High Court upheld the Tribunals order, holding that acceptance of the assessees explanation on reconciliation of professional receipts did not raise any substantial question of law.
The ITAT Mumbai held that additions based solely on AIR information were unsustainable when the assessee had disclosed professional receipts higher than those reflected in the AIR and no contrary evidence was produced.
The ITAT Mumbai held that transfer pricing adjustments for intra-group services were unsustainable because the TPO determined the arms length price without applying any prescribed method under Section 92C. It directed deletion of the adjustments on this technical ground.
The ITAT Mumbai held that the final assessment order was passed beyond the mandatory timeline prescribed under Section 144C(13) after receipt of the DRP’s directions. It declared the assessment void ab initio and allowed the assessee’s appeal.
The Tribunal ruled that loss of an old Section 12A registration certificate is only a procedural deficiency and cannot by itself justify rejection of a Section 12AB application. The matter was remanded for verification of departmental records.
The ITAT observed that registration undertaken solely to satisfy a banks mortgage requirement cannot automatically attract tax under Section 56(2)(x). It restored the matter for fresh examination of the true nature of the transaction.
The ITAT held that the incorrect payment date mentioned in the Tax Audit Report was an obvious typographical mistake and not evidence of delayed PF payment. The issue was remanded for limited verification, with the deduction to be allowed upon confirmation of the challans.
The Tribunal ruled that rejection of Section 12AB registration merely because no expenditure was reflected in the financial statements was unsustainable without examining the trust’s actual activities. Fresh adjudication was directed after proper verification.
The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer failed to establish any specific infirmity in the assessee’s business expenditure before making a 10% ad hoc disallowance. The Tribunal therefore upheld the CIT(A)’s order deleting the addition.
